Recent Articleshttp://prospect.org/authors/126825/rss.xml
The American Prospect - articles by authorenByrd's-Eye Viewhttp://prospect.org/article/byrds-eye-view
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The Senate used to be a place where members argued eloquently -- and at length -- about important issues. Not anymore, according to the man who wrote the chamber's four-volume history.</p>
<p>
“I've never seen a time as partisanly political as the age in which we live,” Senator Robert Byrd told me on October 6 as he was promoting his book, <i>Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency</i>. “Congress, it seems, is governed by the theme we've got to win. The whole thing is built around winning, not around great service, not around great debates.” </p>
<p>
Byrd, who has served in Congress for 51 years and in the Senate for 46 of those years, went on: “Here in the Senate, I see a falling away from debates, and I'm so concerned about this. I've never seen the Senate so mute, so timid, so silent when the greatest issue of all, the issue of war and peace, was before the Senate. I've never been ashamed of the Senate until that time. We failed the people, we failed to ask questions, but we're not alone in that. The American people didn't ask questions, either, nor did the press. I'm so sorry to have come to a point in my lifetime when the Senate is afraid to debate, is intimidated.”</p>
<p>
In a closely divided Senate, Republicans believe they have to toe the president's party line; any questioning of President Bush's positions could wind up in their being labeled disloyal. A few GOP senators, including Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, have started making noises recently about the situation in Iraq. But in a campaign year, it's a rare Republican senator who is willing to put principle above party. (And neither Lugar nor Hagel is up for reelection next month.)</p>
<p>
“We're just no longer a debating forum,” Byrd continued. Of the Senate's discussion on the intelligence reform bill that passed overwhelmingly on October 6, he added: “It seems that the leaders were saying, ‘We've had enough debate, let's get on, finish this bill.' I've never thought I'd ever see the day when the leadership would say, in essence, we've had enough debate, get on with the voting. The business now is hurry, hurry, hurry. Don't debate, just vote.”</p>
<p>
Part of the reason for the rushed schedule is because the Senate was simply out of time. With just a few weeks left until Election Day, members were anxious to get out of Washington and hit the campaign trail. (Good thing that earlier this year they debated bills they knew wouldn't become law, such as the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. That was time well spent.) </p>
<p>
But it's also because there's little time for dissent if there's little time for debate. If senators needed a sign that the “hurry-up-and-vote” mentality is faulty, it came in the report released earlier this month that showed Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. If the Senate had debated the issue a little more and tried to ask some tough and thoughtful questions -- rather than just acceding to the president's rushed timetable -- there's a chance senators would have recognized the war to be unnecessary. </p>
<p>
Senators are supposed to be among America's leaders, after all. Republican senators need to realize that they're serving in an independent, co-equal branch of government that has the right -- and responsibility -- to demand answers from the White House. If they want to serve the president's agenda blindly, they should quit their jobs and go work for the administration.</p>
<p>
Yet it's unlikely that the theme of win-at-all-costs is going to go away anytime soon. Republicans, particularly this president, have made it their mantra. He's found willing accomplices on Capitol Hill who have ample reason to go along with his plans: They look like good, conservative Republicans and voters send them back to Washington.</p>
<p>
“I hope we have a new party in control of the Senate next year and a new president in the White House next year,” Byrd concluded. “That would make a big difference. We've got to do that to save this country. One more term of this outfit that's in the White House and we'll be gone, broken. The country will be bankrupt and Lord help us if we have George Bush again.” </p>
<p>
<i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:00:50 +0000143963 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesDeLaying the Inevitablehttp://prospect.org/article/delaying-inevitable
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has Ronald Reagan beat by a mile when it comes to being a Teflon politician. </p>
<p>Last month, three of DeLay's aides were indicted on charges of money laundering related to DeLay's successful efforts to redistrict Texas -- although DeLay has distanced himself from the ruling. And on Sept. 30, the House Ethics Committee gave DeLay its least severe punishment even as it revealed that he offered to support Republican Representative Nick Smith's son's congressional campaign if Smith supported the Medicare bill during the marathon vote in November. Smith voted against it, and his son, Brad, never got DeLay's support, according to a list of endorsements on Brad Smith's website. Brad Smith lost his primary<br />
race in August.</p>
<p>The ethics committee still has not taken action on Democratic Representative Chris Bell's formal ethics complaint against DeLay, which was filed in June. Bell's complaint charged that DeLay may have illegally solicited and accepted political contributions from an energy company in exchange for action on a bill; laundered illegal corporate contributions to influence Texas legislative races; and used his office to urge federal agencies to find Texas legislators who fled the state to protest redistricting efforts. (Keep in mind that federal marshals were unable to serve former DeLay aide Michael Scanlon with a subpoena to answer questions from Congress on Sept. 29 about lobbying fees he received from Indian tribes.) </p>
<p>“Nobody is above the law, not even Tom DeLay,” Bell told me on Sept. 30 as the ethics committee was weighing whether to take further action on his complaint. “His conduct has raised numerous questions and those questions need to be answered.”</p>
<p>DeLay, not surprisingly, has accused his critics of sour grapes, saying Democrats are unhappy because they lost seats in the Texas redistricting process -- losses that are likely to keep House Democrats in the minority until the next census. He's also pointed out that his aides -- not him -- have gotten into trouble. </p>
<p>In a Sept. 21 statement released after the indictments were handed down, DeLay remarked, “I have not been subpoenaed, I have not been asked to testify, and I have not been called as a witness. They've made clear this investigation is not about me.” </p>
<p>DeLay's other defense is that he didn't know he was doing anything wrong. In a statement released after the Medicare decision on Sept. 30, DeLay said, “I would never knowingly violate the rules of the House. I deeply believe that as members of the House we must conduct ourselves at all times in a manner that reflects credibly on this institution.”</p>
<p>But there are enough connections in Bell's complaint before the Ethics Committee to make one suspicious, at the very least. The three men who were indicted on charges of money laundering and accepting corporate contributions are Jim Ellis, who runs DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority PAC (ARMPAC); John Colyandro, former head of DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority PAC (TRMPAC); and Warren RoBold, a DeLay fundraiser. As any Washingtonian knows, the men and women who collect and dole out cash to candidates are some of the most important players in this town. It's beyond unbelievable to think they didn't consult with DeLay about their actions.</p>
<p>Members of the House Ethics Committee know how important contributions are, too. On Sept. 23, the chairman and ranking member felt the need to release a statement saying that committee members are able to review cases before them that involve members who have contributed to their campaigns. </p>
<p>Yet it's exactly this conflict that makes serving on the ethics committee one of the least desirable assignments in Congress -- members have to investigate and judge their colleagues. That's especially hard in a campaign year. With one week left before Congress is about to recess and four weeks until Election Day, it's unlikely that Republican members of the committee want to anger their party's most powerful leader. </p>
<p>The matter instead will likely be dispatched with quickly and quietly during the lame-duck session in November -- lost for most Americans in the haze of turkey trimmings and holiday shopping -- or early next year, when attention in Washington is focused on the<br />
new president and the 109th Congress' agenda. The Republicans' win-at-all-costs mentality will continue, because there will be no reason for it to stop. </p>
<p>As for Bell, a freshman who was redistricted out of his seat, he plans to spend the fall helping his Texas colleagues who are “fighting for their gerrymandered lives” and aiding John Kerry's presidential campaign. A failure by the committee to act on his complaint “would suggest that the House is ethically bankrupt,” he told me. Not a very encouraging lesson for a lawmaker to learn during his sole term in Congress. But then again, this is Tom DeLay's House, where the rules simply don't stick.</p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 06 Oct 2004 13:57:02 +0000143942 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesNo Rest for the Wickedhttp://prospect.org/article/no-rest-wicked
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>As far as Karl Rove is concerned, George W. Bush just about has the presidential race wrapped up and the Democrats have no chance of regaining a majority in the Senate.</p>
<p>Rove told <i>The Washington Times</i>, in a September 23 interview, that he thinks Republicans will gain as many as four seats to hold a 55-to-45 majority in January. That's exactly the same prediction National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman George Allen made last month on <i>Meet the Press</i>. Rove added, "And even a gain of a couple of seats is going to work a sea change on their ability to obstruct these judges." But the poll numbers don't support the idea of such a large GOP pickup.</p>
<p>More than a month from election day, many of the races are too close to call, according to recent polls. These include seats held by retiring Democrats <i>and</i> Republicans. </p>
<p>“It is way too early to tell,” Democratic political consultant Brad Bannon told me. “In 2002, a lot of close Senate races broke in the last five days of the campaign.”</p>
<p>Look at the seats held by Democrats. Yes, the party is virtually guaranteed to lose Georgia, where Zell Miller, Republican national convention keynote speaker, has held the seat for four years. There's also a good chance that Democrats will lose John Breaux's Louisiana seat. </p>
<p>South Carolina appears to be within reach for the Democrats, with Republican Jim DeMint leading Democrat Inez Tenenbaum by 3 points earlier this month in the race for Fritz Hollings' seat. The race in Florida, where Democrat Bob Graham is retiring, is considered too close to call, with a poll this month giving Democrat Betty Castor a 1-point lead over Republican Mel Martinez.</p>
<p>"The Senate race is a dead heat right now as Florida voters struggle to learn about two candidates who have been competing with hurricanes and presidential candidates for the political spotlight,” said Clay Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, when the survey was released September 23. “Both Martinez and Castor are unknown factors to about four in 10 Florida voters.” </p>
<p>Democrats <i>are&gt;</i> likely to retain North Carolina, where Democrat Erskine Bowles had a 9-point lead over Republican Richard Burr to succeed John Edwards, according to an early August poll. In South Dakota, Tom Daschle led Republican John Thune by 3 points in a late August poll. While Daschle's victory will likely be close, expect the Senate minority leader to tout the benefits his leadership brings to his constituents in the campaign's remaining weeks. </p>
<p>Among states where Republicans are retiring, Barack Obama is a sure bet to pick up Peter Fitzgerald's seat in Illinois. In Colorado, Democrat Ken Salazar led Republican Pete Coors by 11 points earlier this month in the bid to succeed Ben Nighthorse Campbell.</p>
<p>In Oklahoma, a poll taken this month shows Democrat Brad Carson holding a 1-point lead over Republican Tom Coburn to succeed Don Nickles. Yes, it's within the margin of error, but it's a vast improvement over a poll conducted in July that had Coburn up 12 points. In Alaska, Democrat Tony Knowles led Republican Lisa Murkowski by 1 point in a late August poll.</p>
<p>So, let's do the math. At this point, it looks like Democrats will lose two seats and Republicans will lose two seats. Four other seats are too close to call. </p>
<p>But that's not all, as Bannon told me. “I do find it difficult to believe that the GOP is going to pick up four Senate seats when they are the governing party and a majority of Americans think that country is heading in the wrong direction,” he said. “Voters have to vent their hostility and concerns about the economy and Iraq somewhere. That somewhere could be in he United States Senate.”</p>
<p>Remember, it was Rove who allowed President Bush to relax in the final days of the 2000 presidential campaign because he thought the election was in the bag. You would think Rove wouldn't make the same mistake again. If he does, don't expect to see Democrats complaining.</p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:18:23 +0000143920 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesMidnight Expresshttp://prospect.org/article/midnight-express
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The wee hours of a Friday morning tend not to be a busy time for most people. But it's been a very productive period for House Republicans, who passed six bills during that time in 2003.</p>
<p>Democratic Representative Sherrod Brown cataloged the list of legislation passed between midnight and 6 a.m. on Fridays last year for a <i>St. Louis Post-Dispatch</i> column recently. Many of these bills passed by just a handful of votes. The measures cut veterans' benefits as well as Head Start funding and secured $87 billion for Iraq. At 5:55 a.m. on a Saturday, the House passed a prescription-drug bill. As Brown noted, it's convenient to approve measures in the first hours of a Friday morning because coverage is relegated to the Saturday morning papers. </p>
<p>Brown told me that it wasn't this way when Democrats ran the House, or even when Newt Gingrich was speaker. But, he added, “None of this is a surprise -- it's taken to a level no one has ever seen.”</p>
<p>And it certainly didn't end in 2004. </p>
<p>On September 15, House Democrats, including Brown, held a news conference introducing a resolution of inquiry to force the administration to release Medicare drug-cost estimates that were withheld from Congress. (Keeping with the Friday tradition, the administration announced a huge increase in Medicare premiums late on the Friday before Labor Day, a time when Americans are traditionally not focused on politics.) Also on September 15, Representative Joe Barton, who heads the House Energy and Commerce Committee, refused to allow Democrats to make opening statements or offer amendments to a bill that seeks to make it easier to learn the names of those on Vice President Cheney's energy task force. </p>
<p>“Every move made by the Republicans has to do with corporate contributions,” especially those from energy and drug companies, Brown told me. “It's all a nicely woven circle.” The companies write the bill, Republicans include subsidies that help the companies, and then the companies make contributions to GOP campaigns, he explained.</p>
<p>It's not as if Barton -- who hails from Texas and was the star of a “Texas Honky Tonk for Joe Barton” party thrown by corporate contributors at the Republican national convention -- didn't know what he was doing. He admitted that he was breaking with tradition by not allowing Democrats to give their statements and said he hoped it was the “last time this happens.” The measure was reported out of committee unfavorably along party lines. Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky got applause when she called, “Shame on you, Mr. Chairman” while casting her vote. Democratic Representative Henry Waxman left the room. </p>
<p>On September 13, Democratic Representatives David Obey and George Miller complained that Republicans had altered their amendment on overtime regulations on the Clerk of the House Web site to make it less appealing, according to <i>CongressDaily</i>. In a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, they said the change “was clearly an effort to manipulate sentiment against the amendment prior to the vote, and create false legislative history.”</p>
<p>While the amendment passed the House -- one of Democrats' few legislative victories this year -- it won't become law. House Republicans have said that they will strip the amendment from any bill that goes to President Bush. As Miller said in a floor speech on September 13, “Even though a majority of the House voted to stop the president's overtime pay cut, the president's allies here will try to prevent the majority will of the House from prevailing.”</p>
<p>Not that House Republicans are too concerned about the will of the people. They're spending time talking about a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and CBS News' broadcast of questionable documents concerning Bush's National Guard service. What they're not spending time on is oversight, including asking tough questions of Tom Scully, the former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid who lied about the true cost of the drug plan. </p>
<p>“You would think that Congress would be outraged,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said during a September 15 press conference. “It really is a corrosion of the ethical standards of the United States, in addition to being delinquent in fulfilling its responsibilities to the American people.” </p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 20 Sep 2004 12:24:00 +0000143892 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesBoundless Ambitionhttp://prospect.org/article/boundless-ambition
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>While voters are focused on the presidential race, there's another election a few years away that deserves notice, too. It's the campaign to succeed Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has pledged to retire from the Senate at the end of 2006. And while it may seem early to think about this next contest, six senators are already reportedly in the running.</p>
<p>The list, according to <i>Roll Call</i>, includes former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who criticized Senate leaders on the floor this month for not passing legislation more quickly and for virtually guaranteeing a lame-duck session in November. But Lott stands almost no chance of getting his old job back. While he may have understood the legislative process better than Frist does, Senate Republicans aren't anxious to return him to their most powerful position. That's not because of Lott's racially insensitive remarks, mind you, but because many conservatives believe he compromised too often with Democratic leader Tom Daschle.</p>
<p>Another candidate is Chuck Hagel, a moderate who supported Senator John McCain over George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential primaries. That alone will be enough to bar him from the number-one spot. George Allen's candidacy depends in part on how well Senate Republicans do in this fall's election, since he's chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. That leaves three other contenders: Jon Kyl, Mitch McConnell, and Rick Santorum, all of whom are among the Senate's most conservative members.</p>
<p>Each of these men holds a Senate leadership position now, but Santorum is especially well placed to move up to Frist's spot. Santorum, the youngest of the three at 46, reflects a caucus that's become increasingly conservative and unwilling to compromise in recent years. He also stopped by the House on his way to the Senate, a common career path these days. He has to give up his post as chairman of the Senate Republican Conference in 2006, the same year he's running for reelection. What better campaign theme than to say he can give Pennsylvania more pull in Washington, D.C.?</p>
<p>As Franklin and Marshall College public affairs professor G. Terry Madonna, who has followed Santorum's career closely, told me, Santorum has “boundless ambition” and “doesn't perceive himself to be a back-bencher.” Madonna added, “He perceives the world in black and white and is very forceful about his agenda.”</p>
<p>That's sometimes gotten Santorum into trouble, such as when he compared gay sex to bigamy, incest, and adultery last year. But Republicans don't appear particularly bothered by that; indeed, Santorum has pushed for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Santorum is unapologetic about his views, which include opposing each of the following: background checks at gun shows, the continuation of the COPS program, and increasing tax deductions for college tuition. </p>
<p>In case you're wondering if Santorum is too extreme for his caucus, think again. He's liked by many of his colleagues and he could pull support from moderates thanks to Arlen Specter, whose Senate career Santorum helped save this year by backing Specter in the Republican primary. Santorum's views are also in line with that of the administration. In 2003, he supported Bush on 99 percent of votes, according to <a href="http://vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=H3521103" target="outlink">Project Vote Smart</a>. </p>
<p>The one good thing about a Santorum Senate is that it might force Democrats to take the gloves off. Even though Frist plays dirty -- the reverse filibuster last year on judicial nominees, barring Democrats from conference committees, campaigning against Daschle on his home turf -- it can be hard to go after a doctor who helps accident victims on a Florida highway and talks a lot about the plight of AIDS victims in Africa. At least with Santorum, there shouldn't be any confusion about what he's really about or any reticence by Democrats in going after him. As Madonna noted, Democrats can be just as unwilling to bend as Republicans.</p>
<p>Of course, a lot could change between now and the fall of 2006. Frist could choose not to retire. Republicans could become the minority party in the Senate, making his successor's role slightly less important. Santorum could run for the position and lose. </p>
<p>Or Santorum could set his sights on an even higher office. Madonna said a Santorum presidential candidacy is a real possibility “under the right circumstances.” So while the 2004 election is just weeks away, it's not too soon to start worrying about 2006 and beyond. </p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:25:37 +0000143857 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesDéjà Vu All Over Againhttp://prospect.org/article/d%C3%A9j%C3%A0-vu-all-over-again
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>During his convention speech in New York later this week, George W. Bush will finally unveil his agenda for the next four years. I'm guessing that Bush will call on Congress to pass some of his initiatives that remain stalled. In other words, his plan for a second term could look a lot like his plan for the first.</p>
<p>Congress isn't finished for the year, of course. But it's unlikely that lawmakers will have time to pass much legislation, such as an energy bill, which was one of Bush's top priorities in 2000. Another issue that Bush talked about that year -- and that he may raise again now -- is privatizing Social Security. </p>
<p>The administration is also likely to recycle past solutions to new problems. At a town-hall meeting recently, Dick Cheney was asked by a voter whose husband is unemployed about how to keep more U.S. jobs at home. Cheney replied that Congress should make the tax cuts permanent and pass tort reform. Yes, the three tax cuts Congress has already passed really <i>have</i> put a stop to outsourcing while they've been in effect. </p>
<p>The problem for Bush is that he's had two years of majorities in Congress (as well as the first six months of 2001) to take action on issues. That's a situation that neither his father, who got a majority of senators to support the Gulf War in 1991, or Ronald Reagan, who persuaded Democrats to pass a mammoth tax cut in 1981, enjoyed. In their cases, Bush Senior and Reagan worked with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to ensure that they were successful. </p>
<p>The current President Bush tried doing that in 2001, and Democrats helped him pass the No Child Left Behind Act and the first tax cut. But after Bush undercut the education bill -- making Democrats wary of trusting him -- and Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the GOP, he has shown little interest in anything that Democrats are doing. Along with congressional Republican leaders, he's largely cut Democrats out of the legislative process. Making matters worse, Bush hasn't been able to bring Republicans together to pass bills, such as transportation reauthorization, either. </p>
<p>Yet don't be surprised if Bush, Cheney, or the Republican convention's keynote speaker, Democratic Senator Zell Miller, put blame principally on Democrats for the Republicans' inability to act. If they had a bigger majority in Congress, Republicans will argue, they could overcome Democrats' obstructionist tactics. But what makes Republicans think that things will be any easier if Bush wins re-election?</p>
<p>On<i> Meet the Press</i> earlier this month, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman George Allen predicted that Republicans will hold 54 Senate seats next year. That's an optimistic number, and it's still not enough to override a Democratic filibuster. Republican retirements have almost guaranteed that the GOP's majority won't increase by more than a seat or two, and it's easy to envision a scenario where Democrats are in charge. </p>
<p>Also, Bush has already tried his energy proposal, and Democrats have made their objections well-known. With both sides unwilling to bend, lawmakers could spend more time next year spinning their wheels than actually getting things done.</p>
<p>Bush wants to show that he has the “vision thing” that eluded his father, but in his first term, his vision basically amounted to tax cuts and more tax cuts. It's not clear how much patience voters will have for them tax cuts -- especially given the lagging economy and the costs of the Iraq War. </p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:56:06 +0000143822 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesAppraising McCainhttp://prospect.org/article/appraising-mccain
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Ever since Sen. John McCain ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 against then–Gov. George W. Bush, he's been the Democrats' favorite Republican. McCain championed campaign finance reform, an issue Democrats pushed into law over GOP objections. He was thought to be in the running for Sen. John Kerry's vice-presidential nominee and defended Kerry against a recent ad criticizing Kerry's Vietnam service.
</p><p>But McCain -- who Democrats once hoped would pull a Jim Jeffords (by leaving the Republican Party) or a Zell Miller (by remaining in his party but acting like he's a member of the other party) -- has also been a loyal Republican. Campaigning with George W. Bush in Florida earlier this month, he said Bush has “earned our admiration and our love,” according to <i>CongressDaily</i>. McCain also plans to speak during primetime at the Republican National Convention in a few weeks.
</p><p>All of the attention has been great for McCain, who has become the darling of both parties. A frequent guest on television shows, McCain is seen as a credible, articulate straight shooter. And it's never hurt an ego to be considered the most popular guy on campus. As a result, he's become untouchable in the sense that neither party thinks it can afford to alienate or even criticize him.
</p><p>Numerous Democrats, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and even Kerry in his Boston acceptance speech last month, keep touting their friendships with McCain to hitch themselves to his popularity and to show that they're bipartisan. But they also need to recognize that McCain is never going to join their ranks, and that, in the presidential election, he's working for everything they're working against.
</p><p>Even though Bush treated him abominably in the South Carolina primary in 2000 and didn't invite him to the campaign finance bill signing in March 2002, McCain is helping Bush by campaigning with him in such swing states as New Hampshire and Washington this year. But it's not as though Bush is throwing more than kisses McCain's way. A release posted on Bush's campaign Web site this month knocking Kerry's energy record quotes a 2003 statement from National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Executive Vice President Michael Baroody on the Climate Stewardship Act. McCain co-sponsored the bill, which Kerry supported. “To even consider the growth-stifling, command-and-control mandates in Lieberman-McCain while our economy still struggles to create jobs is unfathomable, really,” Baroody said. So even while Bush talks about how “honored” he is to be with McCain on the campaign trail, he's allowing criticism of him in other places.
</p><p>McCain, for his part, has not responded in kind. The military veteran taped an ad for Bush saying the president “has led with great moral clarity and firm resolve” during a difficult time. It's hard to believe that moral clarity includes using trumped-up intelligence to send Americans' sons and daughters into a war zone, something McCain knows about all too well.
</p><p>I've interviewed McCain several times and like him; he's an amiable man and I admire the courage he displayed in Vietnam. I applaud the fact that he's willing to work with lawmakers across party lines, a gesture that's already become all too rare among Hill Republicans. But it's unrealistic for him and for Democrats to think he can continue to straddle the middle any longer. Democratic efforts to embrace him in the hopes that he'll return the hug and bring some votes to the Democratic Party are a waste of time. He's clearly chosen sides, and he didn't choose their side.
</p><p>There's another reason Democrats need to stop chasing McCain: He's tainting his “straight-talk” reputation by stumping for Bush. Sure, backing his party's leader may win McCain points among the Arizona Republican base, whose support he needs to win reelection to the Senate this fall. It may also help him get back into the good graces of the party establishment, whom he angered four years ago by running against Bush. But by appearing alongside a man whose policies often clash with his own, McCain is putting political expediency above political honesty. And that's not anything Democrats need to embrace.
</p><p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect. </i></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:25:56 +0000143791 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesWhat's the Rush?http://prospect.org/article/whats-rush
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>As Republicans continue playing politics -- such as<br />
persuading a Democratic congressman from Louisiana<br />
to register as a Republican shortly before the<br />
election filing deadline on Friday -- Democrats are<br />
returning to Washington Tuesday to talk about national<br />
security issues. </p>
<p>“It's a historic opportunity to enact into law the recommendations of the 9-11 Commission,” Rep. Jim Turner of Texas, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, told me during the Democratic convention, when he thought Republicans would be joining the Democrats this week. “The report gives us momentum we needed to retain a sense of urgency.” </p>
<p>(Turner, by the way, knows the need for urgency. Whatever work he wants to do on the report has to get done this year, as he opted not to run for Congress again after House Majority Leader Tom DeLay redrew Turner's district lines to cost him his job.)</p>
<p>Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, who serves on the House<br />
Armed Services Committee, was just as impassioned. “I don't think we have any choice,” he told me. “We have to go back and pass legislation and we have to do it this year.”</p>
<p>“Whether it helps or hurts John Kerry is irrelevant,”<br />
he added. “We need to take action.”</p>
<p>And retired Gen. Wesley Clark told a panel on national<br />
security and terrorism at the convention, “The U.S.<br />
people demand the right degree of security at home.<br />
There is no excuse for failing to take action right<br />
now.”</p>
<p>The response from Republicans is that the House will<br />
return when it's scheduled to return, after Labor Day.<br />
Its leaders are spending part of this week in Texas,<br />
according to CongressDaily. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert,<br />
Majority Whip Roy Blunt, and National Republican<br />
Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds will<br />
campaign for Republicans challenging Democrats in some<br />
of the seats where DeLay wasn't able to remove<br />
Democrats through redistricting. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, a new report in <i>Time</i> shows that the Democrats' urgency is justified. “This is looking more like the real deal every day,” a top intelligence official told the magazine.</p>
<p>It's worth pointing out that the nation probably wouldn't have had a 9-11 Commission report if the administration had had its way. “The families are the reason why we got a 9-11 Commission,” Meehan told the panel, noting 32 people from his district died that day. If the White House was more concerned about preventing future attacks rather than just trying to cover itself, the commission could have started its work sooner and released its report sooner -- giving lawmakers more time to digest its findings and move ahead with real reforms.</p>
<p>The idea that Congress will have adequate time to<br />
address this issue in September -- along with<br />
contentious, must-pass appropriations bills -- is<br />
ridiculous on its face. Lawmakers haven't been able to<br />
pass much legislation, including an energy bill,<br />
class-action lawsuit reform, a transportation bill, or<br />
even a budget this year. Should Republicans decide to<br />
look like they are doing something about the stalled<br />
economy, that's even less time that will be available<br />
to tackle intelligence issues.</p>
<p>And it's not as though Republicans and Democrats, or<br />
Congress and the administration, will necessarily be<br />
on the same page, either. The intelligence reform<br />
process could well be a slow and partisan one. As Rep.<br />
Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, who serves on the Armed<br />
Services Committee, told me, “While it should be<br />
collaborative, it probably won't be.” </p>
<p>With Congress headed toward a lame-duck session after the Nov. 2<br />
election, some say that that will be the best time for lawmakers to address<br />
intelligence reform. Members plan to spend the<br />
month of October on the campaign trail.) But much of<br />
the intelligence released publicly points to a<br />
possible attack <i>before</i> Election Day -- making a lame-duck session on preventing attacks somewhat meaningless. </p>
<p>If the past is any guide, Congress will still have<br />
plenty of other legislative issues to contend with in<br />
a lame-duck session, so it's not as though the<br />
November calendar is wide open. Furthermore, putting<br />
off intelligence reform until January guarantees that<br />
it will compete with the initiatives of the newly<br />
elected president, whoever he is.</p>
<p>The fact that the 9-11 Commission Report topped the<br />
non-fiction paperback bestseller list in <i>The New<br />
York Times Sunday Book Review</i> should tell<br />
lawmakers that voters are not only concerned about<br />
this issue; they're willing to invest their own time<br />
and money to learn more about it. If they see that<br />
their representatives aren't doing much about it, they<br />
may have little patience for those lawmakers come<br />
Election Day. </p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her<br />
column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the<br />
online edition of The American Prospect. </i></p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:01:49 +0000143758 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesCourt Jesterhttp://prospect.org/article/court-jester
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Sen. Patrick Leahy used an event held in his honor during the Democratic convention last week to talk about the importance of the First Amendment.</p>
<p>“With the crew we have in charge right now, we would not be able to ratify the Bill of Rights,” Leahy said on July 27. He noted that after the founding fathers set up the new government, the first thing they did once in power was pass the Bill of Rights to protect the people they were governing. </p>
<p>But the current administration, “who have botched everything, question the patriotism and the honesty of those who dare stand up to use their First Amendment rights” to challenge it, he added.</p>
<p>Then Leahy told those gathered that the man elected president this fall could nominate as many as four Supreme Court justices in the next few years, and that the Senate would vote on whether to approve them. Leahy didn't leave the audience guessing as to which party he hopes is in charge of both the White House and the Senate.</p>
<p>While Leahy chose to talk about the courts, the issue got little attention just about everywhere else. The economy, Iraq, and health care were the main talking points of the week. Democratic nominee John Kerry talked about the need to avoid using the Constitution for political purposes, but didn't mention the courts specifically in his July 29 acceptance speech.</p>
<p>“You would think people would be focused on [the courts], but it's a nuanced argument,” Rep. John Larson of Connecticut told me. “It's a great, provocative issue that needs to be fleshed out more.”</p>
<p>Sen. Tom Carper told me he's not surprised the issue isn't getting more attention. When he ran for governor of Delaware in 1992, “no one ever asked me a single question about my criteria for judges,” despite the fact that Carper could nominate them as the state's executive officer. </p>
<p>“I'm not really surprised that this issue isn't on the front of everybody's minds,” Carper said.</p>
<p>It was on <i>somebody's</i> mind, however. A large billboard ad near the FleetCenter read “THINK! (about the Supreme Court) Kerry's Scary.” The website mentioned on the ad, <a href="www.kerrysscary.com" target="outlink">www.kerrysscary.com</a>, is a project of the <a href="http://committeeforjustice.org/index.shtml" target="outlink"> Committee for Justice</a>. The group is chaired by C. Boyden Gray, who served as President George H.W. Bush's White House counsel and helped push Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court nomination.</p>
<p>Many lawmakers say the court is among the most important issues up for consideration this fall.</p>
<p>“Given what this administration has done both in Congress and the presidency, the courts are now our last hope,” said Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, noting the court's check-and-balance power. “If [George W.] Bush is elected and guts the court, all hope is lost for everybody.”</p>
<p>One area Democrats are especially concerned about is abortion rights. In 1992, the<br />
court was one vote away from overturning <i>Roe v. Wade</i>. The same is true this year.</p>
<p>Just as importantly, if the election winds up a nail-biter like 2000, it's not inconceivable that the court could step in again and swing the election Bush's way. </p>
<p>Then, of course, there is the issue of civil rights, an area the Bush administration has disregarded repeatedly. At a panel on national security and terrorism on July 28, Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania called voting for the Patriot Act the worst vote he's cast in his 12 terms in Congress. “If we lose our liberty, there's nothing worse,” he said.</p>
<p>While Bush will have to win the Senate's support on his Supreme Court nominees, he's routinely ignored its advise-and-consent role on other choices, such as Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor, whom he installed as appellate judges through recess appointments earlier this year. And just last week, with the spotlight safely off him, Bush made 20 recess appointments for executive positions such as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, no small matter.</p>
<p>Rank-and-file voters, caught up in traditional bread-and-butter issues such as whether they can afford to feed their families and worried about sons and daughters serving in Iraq, aren't likely to give the courts much thought, Larson said. But while the courts may not carry the same sense of urgency, they're just as -- if not more -- important in the long term. The economy will recover and the war will end at some point, but the courts have the ability to make fundamental changes to our system of government, and therefore our way of life. And, like Leahy said, this administration isn't interested in protecting voters from its excesses. </p>
<p>As McDermott told me, “We've got to win the presidency.”</p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect. </i></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:35:09 +0000143742 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesJust say Om-m-mhttp://prospect.org/article/just-say-om-m-m
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Of the 60 speakers who will address the Democratic national convention during the prime hours of 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. this week, 29 are members of Congress. Perhaps that's not a surprise considering that both men on the ticket are sitting senators, and that presidential nominees have to pay obligatory dues to leaders on the Hill. But it also speaks to the important role lawmakers will play in trying to help John Kerry become president as they attempt to win back control of the Capitol.</p>
<p>“The momentum is certainly on our side,” said Representative Jim Langevin of Rhode Island, who will introduce Ron Reagan on Tuesday night to address the need for more stem-cell research. “People recognize we need a new direction in America.”</p>
<p>Those words echoed what House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer said on July 22, when he predicted that Democrats could repeat the Republicans' surprise victory of 1994, when they succeeded in taking control of Congress. “This dissatisfaction has allowed Democrats to defy expectations and recruit enough good candidates and raise enough money to be within striking distance of taking back the House in November,” he said. </p>
<p>Delivering the keynote address at the convention is Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama, who has no credible GOP opposition this fall. Obama will talk about the role of community service and the need for jobs, families, and communities to come first. </p>
<p>Promoting House and Senate members during the convention makes sense: Not only does it showcase the diversity of Congress, it demonstrates the need for a Democratic president to have a Democratic Congress. It may be too much to hope that Kerry will have coattails, given the fact that most polls are within the margin of error a little more than three months before election day. But if Kerry can move those numbers starting this week, voters angry at the Bush administration and comfortable with the alternative may be encouraged to vote a straight ticket, sending more Democrats to the Hill.</p>
<p>Speaking at the convention is to the lawmakers' advantage as well. Even though the networks aren't showing the whole convention lineup, the program provides a chance for members to gain widespread visibility for the Democrats' message, which Langevin described to me as helping working families, promoting affordable health care and stronger job creation, protecting homeland security, and restoring America's reputation internationally. </p>
<p>Representative Mike Honda of California, who will speak Tuesday about service, leadership, and personal courage, said talking about the economy and jobs is the “mantra” of congressional Democrats. “That's the message that we have to share with the American people,” he told me.</p>
<p>It's a perfect opportunity for congressional Democrats to highlight how much more they could get done with Kerry in the White House, especially if they are in charge of the Hill, too. Kerry would have more chance of crafting an agenda that could actually pass Congress -- unlike the Republicans, who still don't have a budget, energy bill, or transportation bill. Perhaps that would encourage members to stay in town, unlike this year, when House members are on track to work the least number of days in 48 years. </p>
<p>As someone with 19 years of experience in the Senate, Kerry knows what it takes to make the Hill work -- unlike George W. Bush, who holds it in such disdain that it's an afterthought. Even though Congress wants to pass a two-year tax-cut extension, Bush is pushing for five years, unwilling to take a partial victory and revisit the issue later. That's a lesson he should have learned from Bill Clinton's health-care debacle. Of course, for Bush, the policy doesn't matter, only the politics; it's a way for him to paint Democrats, who would oppose longer extensions, as fiscally irresponsible liberals.</p>
<p>The most important thing to come out of the convention is not only what Bush and the Republicans have done wrong but what Kerry and the Democrats will do right. The fact that Kerry has united a party after a 10-way presidential primary -- all of the defeated candidates will speak on stage -- and has the support of liberal and moderate lawmakers is a credit to him. Seeing the potential of what he could accomplish in Washington next year should encourage a public frustrated by the GOP's inaction. By helping to get that message out in Boston, Hill Democrats are not only helping Kerry but helping themselves, too. Hopefully, they'll get across to voters just how much is at stake this fall.</p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 26 Jul 2004 19:27:51 +0000143712 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesSpreading Democracyhttp://prospect.org/article/spreading-democracy
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It's a sad state of affairs when a lawmaker has to introduce a bill prohibiting other lawmakers from hacking into one another's computer files, bribing other members on the House floor, or calling the Capitol police to have another member removed from a room. But that's exactly what legislation being introduced this week by Rep. Carolyn Maloney does.</p>
<p>
While each of these examples would seem to violate standards of common decency, they're all things Republicans have done since taking control of the House in 1995. Maloney's bill -- called the Restoring Democracy to the U.S. Congress Act of 2004 -- isn't the only one. Rep. Martin Meehan is proposing legislation -- the Democracy in Congress Act of 2004 -- to allow votes to stay open for a maximum of 30 minutes. (Maloney's bill calls for a 17-minute time limit; the only restriction now is that votes are open for a <i>minimum</i> of 15 minutes.) Republicans have abused this rule repeatedly, most recently on July 8, when they held open a vote for 38 minutes. That was enough time for GOP leaders to convince nine lawmakers to withdraw their support for the bipartisan amendment limiting Patriot Act invasions of Americans' reading habits, ensuring its defeat even as Democrats chanted, “Shame, shame, shame.”</p>
<p>
As House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said after the vote, House Republican leaders showed “they will stop at virtually nothing to win a vote.” Divisions within the GOP forced the “abuse of power” because leaders have trouble winning a vote on its own merits. </p>
<p>
“[E]ven many Republicans recognize that the leadership more often than not takes an extreme view,” Hoyer noted.</p>
<p>
The length of votes on the House floor isn't the only problem, Meehan said on July 14. More than 30 bills have been sent to the House floor under rules that strip Democrats of the power to offer amendments on the floor. Some members are forced to vote on legislation they haven't had a chance to read because it's printed shortly before the vote. “Haste and secrecy have overtaken deliberation and openness,” Meehan said.</p>
<p>Maloney and Meehan's bills, while well-intentioned, have little chance of passing. The limited time left on the legislative calendar and the fact that Republicans, as the majority party, aren't eager to give up power ensure that the bills won't become law this year. But they send an important message to Republicans: Democrats are tired of being shut out of the legislative process. </p>
<p>It's a frustration that Republicans know well. When they were in the minority, especially in the early 1990s, GOP legislators complained that Democrats held open votes for longer than 15 minutes. Democrats counter that when they were in charge, the longer votes allowed more members to get to the floor and weren't kept open in an effort to change the outcome. There's another key difference, too. When Democrats held votes open, it was often for a few extra minutes -- not for almost three hours, the length of time the Medicare vote lasted in the fall.</p>
<p>The reality is that, until Democrats regain the majority, there's not much they can do besides introducing legislation and hoping to spark public debate. If change comes, it will be from moderates in the Republican Party who demand that their leaders treat Democrats fairly. It's in the moderates' best interest that House procedures aren't discarded at whim; fair rules allow moderates to vote their conscience and the conscience of their constituents. Allowing votes to happen in the time allotted and Democrats to offer amendments on the floor might be to the Republican Party's advantage, too: They could actually reflect public opinion rather than govern based on a conservative agenda the voters don't support. But don't look for moderates to revolt in an election year, when GOP leaders can distribute or withhold money and resources that affect election outcomes. </p>
<p>As Maloney wrote in a “dear colleague” letter urging other lawmakers to support her bill, “we are increasingly becoming a model of how not to run a democracy.” At a time when the president and his party seem so intent on spreading democracy throughout the world -- using whatever means or justification it can -- voters here should demand that GOP leaders practice what they preach. Otherwise, what lesson are we teaching?</p>
<p>
<i><br />
Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 20 Jul 2004 19:19:56 +0000143698 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesGames Congresspeople Playhttp://prospect.org/article/games-congresspeople-play
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>With about 30 legislative days left this year, Republicans have decided to spend a good part of that time focusing on the issue of gay marriage. Yes, they still haven't passed a budget, most of the appropriations bills, or legislation like class-action reform (which went on life support recently) but no matter -- this year is about politicking, not governing.</p>
<p>The Senate will debate and likely hold a vote on a constitutional ban on gay marriage this week. Because it's a constitutional amendment, the bill needs the support of two-thirds of the Senate to pass. In such a partisan chamber, it's hard to get a simple majority to pass a bill these days. Republicans acknowledge that the bill doesn't have enough votes, but they're going ahead with it anyway to score political points.</p>
<p>As Sen. Dick Durbin noted on the Senate floor on July 7, the GOP's plan amounts to a “political grandstand. ... It really demeans this great Constitution we have sworn to uphold that we are playing games” by bringing up the proposed amendment without the Senate Judiciary Committee thoroughly vetting it first. Bypassing the committee in this way is something, as he has said, that has happened only a few times in recent history. </p>
<p>“It is just a record vote to put members on the spot and to try to gas up the special interest groups that feel strongly on this issue,” Durbin continued. “That really does not address the issues working families care about.”</p>
<p>The timing of the vote supports Durbin's argument. Frist insists that “activist judges” in states like -- surprise, surprise -- John Kerry's home of Massachusetts are forcing the Senate to take up the issue now, making it more important than helping the economy along or holding down high gas prices. They say it has nothing to do with the start of the Democratic convention on July 26 in Boston (Massachusetts again). Right. They've also got some weapons of mass destruction in Iraq they'd like to show you.</p>
<p>Last month, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Senate Republicans were foolish to hold a vote on the constitutional amendment even though they knew it would not pass. He also said he would move to hold “some sort of vote” on the bill in the House this month. But on July 7, DeLay changed his mind and said the House might vote on a constitutional amendment in September. </p>
<p>“I realized we're going to need a constitutional amendment if we want to protect marriage,” he said. </p>
<p>What DeLay realized was that he could get more bang from his political buck by visiting the issue in September instead, and that's now his plan. By having one chamber consider the issue in July and the other in September, that's two chances for voters to get riled up.</p>
<p>Some Republicans are trying to make the case that spending time on the gay-marriage ban makes sense even given the limited time on the calendar. The question of judges trying to change the definition of marriage is “certainly on the minds of a lot of my constituents,” Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said. </p>
<p>But, as Durbin said, Democrats should be pointing out to voters what's not getting done while Republicans pretend to legislate. Sen. Bill Nelson recounted that at a town hall meeting in Florida over the July Fourth recess, an elderly woman began crying because she couldn't afford both prescription drugs and her home. Durbin talked about the “middle-class squeeze across America.” Sen. Barbara Boxer mentioned college-tuition costs. </p>
<p>She added, “I have never had one person in California come up to me and say: Senator, the most important thing facing us is gay marriage. That is just ruining my life. Take that up. Ban it because it is what I think about night and day.” </p>
<p>It's good to see Democrats expose the nakedness with which congressional Republicans are pushing this issue. That's not hard, of course; the GOP isn't being all that skillful about it. Not content to just waste time on a gay-marriage ban, Senate Republicans plan a vote on another pressing issue soon: a constitutional amendment on flag burning. Never mind that flag burning does not rate among voters' top concerns, according to recent polls; it's not even on the list. But it's a way for the GOP to paint Democrats as unpatriotic.</p>
<p>Lawmakers have already frittered away much of the 108th Congress. It may be too much to demand that things change now. But considering how much work they have to do -- appropriations bills fund the federal government, so ideally Congress would pass them before their target adjournment date of October 1 -- you would think they would focus only on those issues that have a chance of passage. You would also think they would listen to voters about their top concerns. Since that doesn't seem to be happening, though, maybe voters need to send a message that's loud and clear -- and put a party that's actually listening in charge.</p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:51:25 +0000143643 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn Jones"Little Tent" Republicanshttp://prospect.org/article/little-tent-republicans
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Conservative Republicans continue to show that it's their way or the highway when it comes to Washington. </p>
<p>Illinois Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald told <i>The Chicago Tribune</i> recently that Republicans "sabotage[d]" the campaign of Senate candidate Jack Ryan, who had to pull out of the race after embarrassing disclosures from his divorce records.</p>
<p>"Why fight a two-front war -- against the Democrats on one hand, his own party leadership on the other hand?" Fitzgerald asked. </p>
<p>
Considering the trouble Republicans had in coming up with a Republican candidate before Ryan -- and the fact that more than a week has passed with no replacement -- it looks like Democrat Barack Obama is almost a sure bet to pick up the seat this fall. </p>
<p>Another example of the GOP's disdain for its own comes from Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, who told <i>CongressDaily</i> recently that he's never had any one-on-one time with President Bush. But he said he's learned that by not letting<br />
go of the president's hand immediately after shaking it at a bill-signing photo-op, he can get a few words in. It's nice to know that Bush is listening to the different wings of his party. </p>
<p>
And on Capitol Hill, Senate Republicans are considering changing the rules of the Senate<br />
Republican Conference to allow Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist more power to punish senators who stray from the party line, <i>Roll Call</i> reported.</p>
<p>
As Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum told the paper, Republican lawmakers are concerned "that our leader has less levers to be able to accomplish what he wants to accomplish" than other congressional leaders. "They believe giving the leader some more options is something we need to consider." </p>
<p>
What prompted this thinking is the trouble Republicans are having as they try to pass a budget. Arizona Sen. John McCain, for example, has said he wants to see the<br />
Republican Party adhere to fiscal discipline. Rather than compromising, conservatives prefer to dig in their heels and change the system. There's talk, for example, of assigning committee seats not by seniority but by having Frist award positions.</p>
<p>
Whether Republicans actually pass this rule change remains to be seen. Doing so would harden the partisan lines that already exist and could render the few moderate Republicans who buck the party's position -- Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, as well as McCain -- less effective. So much for the "Big Tent" Republican Party. Even as Republicans contemplate this clampdown, however, Bush is all too happy to rely on McCain on the campaign trail to give him cover on the Iraq War. McCain, the loyal military man, has complied. </p>
<p>
Moderate Republicans would do well to think about what they are actually getting from or giving to the party these days. Obviously, party leaders aren't anxious to hear<br />
their opinions when they disagree with the party line. GOP leaders are looking for a top-down system where they give the orders and lawmakers blindly follow<br />
them, contrary to a spirit of the Senate that stresses individualism. And, as long as Bush sits in the White House, you can bet that he'll be the one who's really driving the agenda on Capitol Hill. This means that besides facing anger from Senate leaders, moderate Republicans may be frozen out by the White House as well, except when it's politically convenient for the president.</p>
<p>
But even if Republicans can demand more unity on the Senate side, the party as a whole is showing some divisions. There's still disagreement among Senate and House Republicans and the White House, over funding the six-year transportation bill. It would be much easier for Republicans if all of its party members were on the same page. Pretending that that's the case, despite evidence to the contrary, won't make the problem go away. </p>
<p>
Perhaps this is one of the dangers of becoming too comfortable with majority status. The conservative leaders of the Republican Party have donned blinders that make them believe everything should go their way; they ignore warning signs that suggest<br />
otherwise. Their belief that, as the majority party, they should always prevail has in fact made them vulnerable. Voters didn't endorse a conservative agenda in 2000 or even in 2002, and the electorate remains almost split down the middle. </p>
<p>
Democrats learned a painful lesson in 1994 about just how vulnerable a majority party can be, especially if it doesn't listen to all members of its party. They didn't heed party members who warned that passing some legislation -- such as the assault-weapons ban -- could cost them control of Congress. Republicans, at least at the White House and Senate<br />
level, look like they could be headed down the same road. </p>
<p><i><br />
Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 07 Jul 2004 14:19:47 +0000143631 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn Jones 24-Hour Party Peoplehttp://prospect.org/article/24-hour-party-people
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle made a revolutionary speech on the Senate floor last week. He didn't call on the president to resign or tell a senator to “fuck yourself,” as Vice President Dick Cheney suggested to Patrick Leahy on June 22. Instead, Daschle said senators should rise above their partisan differences and work together.</p>
<p>Daschle even outlined steps that Senate Democrats should take next year if they regain control of the chamber. They would, he said, deal in good faith with the executive branch; do the Senate's job with respect to the budget, oversight, and judicial nominees; respect the minority party; and “end the cycle of partisan retaliation.” He also said senators should spend more time with one another so that they can follow the example of former President Ronald Reagan and erstwhile House Speaker Tip O'Neill, who put aside their political differences and were friends after 6 p.m. </p>
<p>While Daschle's ideas would, if actualized, bring back some comity to the Senate, it's hard to see how they would work in today's political environment. Assume that Democrats once again have the majority in the Senate, but are not in control of either the House or the White House. It's naive to expect that Republicans would just make nice and try to work with Daschle -- after all, right now they're trying to kick him out of office. They would use every rule in a chamber that gives individual senators tremendous power to make life for the minority party difficult and obstruct their goals. “[T]he Founding Fathers deliberately designed this Senate to protect the rights of the minority,” Daschle said.</p>
<p>If you think Republicans would operate differently, think back to last week. On June 22 John Kerry was on Capitol Hill to vote on an amendment supporting veterans' rights. Senate Republicans, anxious to deny him the chance to support the bill, delayed the vote so that he missed it. Yet on the morning of June 23, the Senate delayed votes so that Republicans could finish up their round of golf at TPC Avenel. The GOP has turned the chamber into one that suits its members' partisan and personal goals. It's almost unthinkable that a bill like the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which had the forward-thinking and well-intentioned support of a Democratic president and a Republican Senate leader, would pass today.</p>
<p>But we can't turn back the clock and return to a time when politicians could trust one another's word. As nice as that would be, the political system has been so poisoned by Bill Clinton's impeachment, the Florida recount, and George W. Bush's partisan tactics that it's unrealistic to hope to return to the days of Reagan and O'Neill. Democrats are simply setting themselves up for failure if they think otherwise.</p>
<p>Daschle was right in noting that “the result of all-or-nothing politics is too often nothing.” The two parties do need to be able to work together to get things done. Referring to the energy and prescription-drug bills, he said, “A closed meeting that is a conference committee in name only is no place to look for common ground.” If they have control of the Senate, Democrats should hold themselves to a higher standard than the ones Republicans have set in conference committees, because it's outright undemocratic to strip away representation of from half of the country's voters </p>
<p>While Daschle's suggestions to hold bipartisan leadership meetings every two months and bipartisan caucus meetings four times a year are good ones, he needs to realize that fuzzy words aren't going to replace hardball tactics overnight. It's been a decade since the Republicans declared a war on Congress with the Republican revolution and since Daschle assumed the title of Democratic leader. One of the reasons that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is so popular among her rank-and-file members is because she's adopted a tough line against Republicans -- and because she's realized that Democrats are tired of being the nice guys who lose. Daschle would do well to follow her example.</p>
<p>Of course, as Daschle pointed out, these ideas are merely academic. With the electorate split down the middle, no one knows which party will control Congress or the White House a year from now. And Daschle, eager to protect Democrats from charges of obstructionism, has little to lose by making a speech calling for the “politics of common ground.” But have no doubt that if Democrats do regain control, they'll invoke Daschle's speech and hold him to his word. Instead of making nicer politics, things could get very mean indeed.</p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:19:17 +0000143608 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesNever Mind Bob Bullockhttp://prospect.org/article/never-mind-bob-bullock
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Throughout the 2000 presidential campaign, George W.<br />
Bush invoked the name of Bob Bullock, the late<br />
Democratic lieutenant governor of Texas. Bush said<br />
his relationship with Bullock represented the spirit of bipartisanship that<br />
had ruled Texas during his years as governor. In his<br />
acceptance speech at the Republican National<br />
Convention in Philadelphia, Bush called the evening<br />
"bittersweet" because Bullock, "my great friend," was<br />
not there. </p>
<p>I couldn't find any such Bullock references this year by doing a quick keyword search on President<br />
Bush's reelection website. But there's another<br />
Democrat that Bush is calling "my friend" these days:<br />
Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia. Miller was at the launch<br />
of <a href="http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2353" target="outlink">Democrats for Bush</a> in March and later <a href="http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2355" target="outlink">wrote</a> fellow<br />
Democratic Bush supporters that "you have demonstrated<br />
true courage and conviction to values and principles<br />
over partisanship." And in <a href="http://georgewbush.com/KerryMediaCenter/Read.aspx?ID=2567" target="outlink">remarks</a> last month to the<br />
Democratic Leadership Council, Miller said Kerry's<br />
"extreme positions are totally out of touch with<br />
mainstream American values."</p>
<p>There's even talk that Miller might appear at the<br />
Republican convention, although Miller told <i>The Hill</i><br />
he wasn't sure; he added that he wasn't planning to go<br />
to the Democratic convention in Boston. (It might be<br />
hard for Miller to stay away from New York, however.<br />
As former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott told <i>The<br />
Hill</i>, "He'd certainly get a hero's welcome.")</p>
<p>But there are several problems for Bush in trying to<br />
make a similar bipartisan argument this year to the<br />
one he made in 2000. First of all, Miller isn't a<br />
leader among Democrats in Congress, as Bullock was in<br />
Texas. (And Bush had little choice but to work with<br />
Bullock, given the weak nature of the Texas<br />
governorship.) The idea of Bush working hand-in-hand<br />
with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi or Senate<br />
Minority Leader Tom Daschle and praising them is<br />
laughable; he's tried to cut Democrats out of the<br />
governing process, while Vice President Dick Cheney raised<br />
money in March for Daschle's Senate opponent in South<br />
Dakota, John Thune. Miller is the outlier among Senate<br />
Democrats: He favors even more tax cuts and is<br />
opposing Senate colleague John Kerry's presidential<br />
campaign. </p>
<p>Second of all, Bush's words of bipartisanship have been just<br />
that: words. He hasn't followed them through with<br />
action. Sure, he talked a good game when he first got<br />
to town, working with Sen. Ted Kennedy to push<br />
through the No Child Left Behind bill -- only to cut<br />
its funding later. Bush's promise during his<br />
convention speech to "change the tone of Washington<br />
to one of civility and respect" is simply pathetic;<br />
it was his political advisers who helped oust<br />
Vietnam veteran and triple-amputee Max Cleland from the Senate by<br />
questioning his courage. (Of course, Bush's convention<br />
speech was the same one in which he said, "A<br />
generation shaped by Vietnam must remember the lessons<br />
of Vietnam: When America uses force in the world, the<br />
cause must be just, the goal must be clear, and the<br />
victory must be overwhelming." So you can <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/conv/118.htm" target="outlink">judge for<br />
yourself</a> how much of it was campaign rhetoric.)</p>
<p>Third, Bush has lost support from many members of his<br />
own party, so he might want to reach out to them first.<br />
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, arguably the party's most<br />
popular figure at the moment, isn't tying himself too closely<br />
to Bush, according to <i>The Los Angeles Times</i>. A <i>CBS<br />
News</i> <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/politics/main619349.shtml" target="outlink">poll</a> last month showed that Bush's approval among<br />
Republicans, while still high at 84 percent, had<br />
dropped 7 percent from April; his overall approval<br />
rating was just 41 percent. Bush has been<br />
disrespectful of his party's members of Congress, too,<br />
misleading them on the cost of the prescription drug<br />
bill and bypassing them to make judicial appointments.</p>
<p>Of course, none of this will stop Bush from making the<br />
argument that he's just a nice guy who wants to work<br />
with everybody to get things done. But it was former<br />
President Ronald Reagan's death that makes this sort<br />
of statement from Bush ring so hollow. Several<br />
Democrats acknowledged that while they disagreed with<br />
Reagan's policies, at least he was willing to meet<br />
with them and hear them out. That's not true of this<br />
president.</p>
<p>There's no doubt that Bush will continue to invoke<br />
Miller's name this fall. The Georgia senator has<br />
nothing to lose by it; the southern conservative<br />
is retiring from public office in January. Voters,<br />
however, do have a lot at stake; they simply can't<br />
afford to be tricked again. We can be forgiven for<br />
believing Bush in 2000, as few of us knew what Bush<br />
would really be like as president. But as the old<br />
saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me<br />
twice, shame on me." After four years of judging Bush<br />
on his record of partisanship, disrespect, and<br />
incivility, one Democrat's words do not bipartisanship<br />
make. </p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:25:16 +0000143588 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesClocked Outhttp://prospect.org/article/clocked-out
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>With the House and Senate shut down on Friday for the funeral of former President Ronald Reagan, lawmakers lost yet more time on the expiring congressional calendar. Congress is scheduled to be out from June 28 to July 5 for the July 4 recess (or, in official parlance, the “Independence Day District Work Period”). From the Democratic convention, which takes place the last week in July, to the GOP convention, which ends in early September, most members of Congress (all of the House and one-third of the Senate) will be away from Washington and campaigning for reelection. The target date for adjournment is Oct. 1. With control of Congress potentially up for grabs and a close election between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, lawmakers will be looking to get out on time. </p>
<p>This shrinking legislative window wouldn't be as much of a problem if Congress hadn't been inactive for so much of this year. As House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer noted last month, House members have worked “bankers' hours” in 2004; they may put in less face time than in 1998, when representatives reported for work in the nation's capital just 119 times. (That's one out of every three days for a year.) It would be merely ironic that lawmakers might spend more time this year trying to hold onto their jobs than actually doing those jobs, if so much important legislation -- the budget for fiscal year 2005 and the six-year transportation reauthorization bill, among other things -- were not sitting idle.</p>
<p>“Republicans have made it clear that ‘doing nothing' is their campaign strategy,” Hoyer said. “Republican leaders have publicly stated that they don't intend to do much this year, and plan to coast until the November election.”</p>
<p>But as the clock winds down on the 108th Congress, GOP leaders may be deciding it's time to get serious. A Republican House staffer told <i>Roll Call</i> this month that lawmakers could soon be working -- gasp! -- “perhaps five-day weeks.” Senators may even have to come back to work after the White House's congressional barbecue on Tuesday night, the newspaper reported.</p>
<p>It would be nice to think that lawmakers would take action on the many problems plaguing the country at the moment: an economy that's more than a million jobs short of where it was when the Bush administration began; high prices at the gas pump; and a war that's draining our treasury and seems unlikely to end anytime soon. But with none of the must-pass spending bills having passed either the House or Senate (let alone conference committees), there just isn't time to deal with all of these things, too. (Perhaps this is good news -- the biggest piece of legislation Congress passed last year was the flawed prescription drug bill. Passing no bills may be better than passing bad bills.)</p>
<p>In contrast to Republicans, Hoyer said, “Democrats don't want to coast. Democrats want to roll up our sleeves and get things done on behalf of the American people.” With Republicans controlling the House and cutting Democrats out of much of the legislative process, however, Democrats find themselves excluded from helping out.</p>
<p>There's another downside to the rushed timetable. The Defense Department reauthorization bill has more than 200 amendments waiting for consideration in the Senate. Debating and voting on all of them could take weeks, which isn't a realistic option, so the Senate will likely dismiss the vast majority of them out of hand. And if appropriations bills are bogged down come adjournment time, there'll be another omnibus bill approving large amounts of money for projects that members won't have adequate time to review. Meanwhile, even though time is in short supply, House GOP leaders will spend this week trying to score political points rather than passing legislation -- by grandstanding on energy bills that they know will not get through the Senate. </p>
<p>Republicans are saying that productivity is down because Democrats are holding up bills. But it's Republicans who, as the majority party, set the legislative calendar and generally control the speed at which things happen. If they actually wanted to get something done, they should have pressed members to work longer hours in Washington throughout the year rather than pushing the panic button with so little time left. As with much of the GOP's agenda, though, they've acted in a short-sighted way that has put their political goals -- maintaining control of Congress -- ahead of the needs of the American people. If they don't want to work harder for voters, perhaps they shouldn't be getting their votes.</p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:57:44 +0000143548 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesSecrecy Planhttp://prospect.org/article/secrecy-plan
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>At her weekly press conference on Thursday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gave several instances of the White House being less than forthright recently on important issues. First, there was the prison-abuse scandal; the administration withheld information from Congress until the day it was going to be aired on<i> 60 Minutes II</i>. Pelosi also learned through the media that Ahmad Chalabi was on the Defense Department's payroll up until last month. (And Pelosi should be no stranger to intelligence issues; she sat on the House Intelligence Committee until becoming minority leader about 18 months ago and still receives some intelligence reports because of her leadership position.) </p>
<p>Keeping information from Congress and other government agencies is nothing new to this White House, however. Going further back in President Bush's term, many lawmakers -- both Republicans and Democrats -- complained that they learned more from the media than from intelligence briefings on the Hill after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration's secrecy in dealing with the 9-11 commission led former Sen. Bob<br />
Kerrey to threaten to quit the panel in February. And, of course, there was Vice President Cheney's secret energy panel, which the General Accounting Office -- the investigative branch of Congress -- unsuccessfully sued to learn more about. </p>
<p>The White House didn't share all relevant information with Congress about the real costs of the prescription drug bill, even though the interests of millions of Americans were at stake -- not only those of seniors who buy prescription drugs but also those of their<br />
children, many of whom pay for their parents' expensive medication. And it didn't reveal that the "tax cuts" Congress passed in 2001 and 2003 are actually likely to lead to tax <i>increases</i>, as is shown by a <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/6-2-04tax.htm" target="outlink">new study</a> from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Households earning less than $76,400 a year will "give back all of their tax cut and more," House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer said Wednesday. "At the same time, investment in important programs that these same Americans depend on will be reduced." </p>
<p>Secrecy is necessary for presidents; we, and Congress, simply don't have the need or the time to know everything they know. But it's important that presidents view secrecy as a privilege and not use it unnecessarily, just as it's important that they don't mislead us. The reason that Congress has oversight responsibilities is because it's assumed that<br />
presidents aren't always going to be upfront. </p>
<p>This administration has proved the need for congressional oversight many times over. Days after the prison-abuse scandal broke and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld evasively answered questions from Congress, Bush praised him for doing a "superb job."<br />
The fact that administration officials are often less than helpful when Congress performs its oversight duties and the fact that Republican lawmakers often give the White House a free pass is something for voters to think about this fall. </p>
<p>Another reason secrecy is generally bad policy is that the information usually leaks out anyway. Washington is not a town that can keep a secret, and a constant drip is worse than getting all of the bad news out in one day's news cycle. Bush showed that he understood this when he acknowledged the details of his DUI arrest as soon as the story broke, days before the 2000 presidential election. But on matters of real importance, Bush has shown he believes it'sbetter to fudge the facts and just hope that everyone forgets about it later on.</p>
<p>That's not a bad strategy, what with much of the press failing to dig deep into the administration's actions or keep track of Bush's misstatements. At least one Democrat, however, is keeping a record. On her website, Rep. Jan Schakowsky posts <a href="http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/Bush_Mistatement_of_the_Day.html" target="outlink">"The Bush Administration Misstatement of the Day."</a> Last week, for example, Bush said he didn't "remember having any extensive conversations with [Chalabi]. … I don't remember anybody walking into my office saying, Chalabi says this is the way it's going to be in Iraq." But on "Meet the Press" in February, Bush recalled that "right here in the Oval Office I sat down with … Chalabi" and talked about the future of Iraq.</p>
<p>It's too much to hope that the administration would learn that it's better to be honest than try to keep secrets; we're at the end, not the beginning, of Bush's four years in office, after all. So if the administration won't change, it's time for voters to change the administration. Four more years of secrets and lies is simply too high a price to pay.</p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Wed, 09 Jun 2004 11:12:28 +0000143533 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesBreakin' All the Ruleshttp://prospect.org/article/breakin-all-rules
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Democratic Senator Zell Miller says the Senate has become “just one big, bad ongoing joke, held hostage by special interests and so impotent an 18-wheeler truck loaded with Viagra would do no good.” He's proposed abolishing the direct election of senators -- laid out in the 17th Amendment -- and allowing, instead, state legislatures to choose them. California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter, meanwhile, says the chamber “has become mesmerized by cameras” in investigating the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.</p>
<p>What's behind these charges? Miller is a cranky, retiring Georgian who came to the Senate reluctantly in 2000 to fill out the term of the late Republican Paul Coverdell. While Miller's technically a Democrat, he often works with Republicans and is an outspoken supporter of President Bush's re-election. He blames the Senate for holding up Bush's judicial nominees, encouraging partisanship, and allowing spending increases.</p>
<p>Hunter's complaint represents the institutional animosity that's always existed between the House and the Senate. Many House Republicans are frustrated that the Senate isn't more efficient at passing GOP bills and isn't run with a tighter fist -- in short, that it's not more like the House. That's a good thing, of course. The last thing we need is another Tom DeLay.</p>
<p>Many of the criticisms about the Senate are valid. The world's most exclusive club, as it's known, is unrepresentative: There are only a handful of minorities in the Senate now, and no African Americans or Latinos. Even though women make up more than half of the country's population, only 14 actually serve in the Senate (and one of them, Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, was appointed by her father). Senators from small states like Delaware, which has only one House member based on its population, carry as much weight as senators from large states like California, which has 53 House members. Because of a senator's seniority (based on length of time in office), lawmakers who represent fewer people often have more influence than those who represent larger numbers of voters.</p>
<p>In addition, the Senate has grown increasingly partisan in the last decade as House members -- such as Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum, the third-ranking Republican -- have come to the Senate, bringing with them the House's partisan venom. Think about this: In May, former President Bill Clinton delivered the first annual Robert J. Dole lecture at the University of Kansas. Not only did Clinton defeat Dole in the 1996 presidential election, the two faced off repeatedly when Dole ran the Senate. Yet they're able to put aside their differences. It's hard to imagine Santorum extending a similar invitation to, say, Tom Daschle or Hillary Rodham Clinton.</p>
<p><i>And</i> the Senate is full of egos. It's probably not too far off to joke that when every senator looks in the mirror in the morning, he or she sees a president staring back.</p>
<p>But for all of its faults, the Senate shouldn't be changed. Just one senator or group of senators can provide a needed brake on legislation, especially when a single party controls the White House, House, and Senate. If this wasn't the case, the energy bill crafted by Vice President Dick Cheney and his secret committee would be law right now. We'd also be further in the red because Congress would have passed an even larger tax bill in 2003. Only senators can hold up a president's judicial nominees (think of Robert Bork or Miguel Estrada). And on its best days, such as those leading up to the Iraq War, the Senate floor is a lively, opinionated place full of thoughtful people debating the nation's future.</p>
<p>The fact that a single senator enjoys a six-year term and usually represents more voters than a single House member gives him or her greater autonomy to think about what's right for the country as a whole, rather than just what will score points in the immediate future. House members may consider this hogging the limelight, but it's senators who have been asking tough questions of the September 11 commission and of members of the administration with regard to Iraq. House members are welcome to chime in at any time.</p>
<p>As for Miller's desire to abolish the 17th Amendment, all I can say is that the American people have voted directly for senators for nearly 100 years. To take back their right now would not only be highly unlikely, as Miller himself has admitted, but also harmful to voters' sense of entitlement. </p>
<p>The Senate isn't perfect. It can be cowardly in standing up to presidents. It can be disorganized. It can be slow. And it can be infuriating. No one ever said government is neat and tidy; that's why the legislative process is often compared to making sausage. But it's a needed complement to the House and a necessary part of governing. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the Senate is the worst form of government -- except for all those others that have been tried.</p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Tue, 01 Jun 2004 11:37:19 +0000143519 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesUn-American Activitieshttp://prospect.org/article/un-american-activities
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>On Thursday, the same day President Bush trekked to Capitol Hill to rally Republicans (but not to answer any their questions) about the war in Iraq, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke to reporters. She said that while some people think Bush has “great resolve … resolve must be accompanied by judgment and a plan. The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality and pull the curtain back?”</p>
<p>Perhaps anticipating what was likely to happen next, Pelosi noted that Republicans “cannot say that anyone who criticizes their failures is not supportive of the troops.” The war in Iraq can be won, she said, with a “better plan” and a new commander in chief.</p>
<p>Those words were too much for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who accused Pelosi of employing “irresponsible, dangerous rhetoric.” He added, “Her party has a responsibility to the troops and to this nation to show unity in a time of war.” Representative Tom Reynolds, who's in charge of increasing GOP numbers in the House this fall, said Pelosi should “go back to her pastel-colored condo in San Francisco and keep her views to herself,” according to <i>The New York Times.</i></p>
<p>It's ironic that DeLay is making these comments, considering that he helped orchestrate the GOP effort to criticize the timing of the bombing in Iraq in 1998 (while at the same time driving Bill Clinton's impeachment). And given that the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism show no signs of ending anytime soon, it's ridiculous to expect Democrats to put aside their criticism for the foreseeable future. But it also shows that Republicans are nervous -- and rightly so -- about how the Iraq War will affect Bush's re-election chances.</p>
<p>If the GOP was confident that the United States was winning and that the American people supported them, there would be no harm in allowing dissent from the other side -- that's always been one of the hallmarks of democracy. There was dissent on Capitol Hill about whether to go to war with Iraq during the first Bush administration, and while the White House may not have wanted to hear it, Republicans then didn't tell Democrats to shut up and apologize for their views.</p>
<p>Much of George W. Bush's administration has been a knee-jerk reaction to his father's, and this is yet another example. His father didn't stop Democratic criticism on Iraq and other issues, and the next year was booted from office. Bush is determined not to repeat his father's mistakes. If there's no opposition, voters won't really have an alternative to choose from on election day.</p>
<p>In case you think Republicans only make blatantly ridiculous statements about Democrats, don't forget that House Speaker Dennis Hastert said last week that Senator John McCain, who was a prisoner of war for more than five years in Vietnam, needs to learn a little about sacrifices during wartime -- this because McCain is one of several moderates holding up the budget by pressing for fiscal responsibility.</p>
<p>Hill Republicans have already shut Democrats out of much of the legislative process. It's obnoxious that DeLay and other GOP leaders try to limit the ability of Republicans to present alternative views, as McCain did. One of the few things Democrats are still able to do -- and should do -- as the minority party is criticize Republicans. For the GOP to try to take that away, too, is not only disturbing but downright undemocratic.</p>
<p>On Thursday, DeLay accused Pelosi of being “so caught up in partisan hatred for President Bush that her words are putting American lives at risk.” Funny, I thought that Republicans were the ones who put American lives at risk when they rushed to war without gathering all of the facts or persuading much of the world to join the war effort. If Republicans had listened to the questions Democrats, including Pelosi, asked in early 2003, maybe we wouldn't have gone to war at all, which would have saved many American lives.</p>
<p>But what do I know? I'm just a Democrat who should keep her opinions to herself.</p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 24 May 2004 19:25:36 +0000143506 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn JonesFood Fighthttp://prospect.org/article/food-fight-0
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>"Gridlock, uncertainty, inaction, backlog, and delay: That is all the Senate is serving up these days,” Assistant Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell bemoaned on the Senate floor recently. “Gridlock, uncertainty, inaction, backlog, and delay is all that is on the menu in the Senate these days.”</p>
<p>It's a complaint coming from both parties this election year, and it's likely to get worse. With Democrats grumbling that Republicans are shutting them out of the legislative process -- and Republicans griping that Democrats are obstructing the Senate's progress -- the Senate is on the verge of a partisan breakdown.</p>
<p>Republicans are considering whether to force the issue of obstructionism on the Senate floor sometime in June. (They forced the issue of judicial nominations in a highly ineffective 39-hour reverse filibuster last fall, which resulted in President Bush making recess appointments of two of the stalled nominees early this year.) Never mind that Republicans are not only in the Senate majority but have control of the House and White House as well. Never mind that Republicans would have better luck getting things accomplished if they reached out to the other side, rather than ignoring them and their votes.</p>
<p>Of course, they don't see it this way. As McConnell said, “The price of obstruction is real. It is rising.” He noted that there is “little relief in sight” on pending bills involving transportation, energy, welfare reform, tort reform, and medical-lawsuit reform “due to obstruction by Democrats.”</p>
<p>Still, a few things have gotten done recently, most notably the corporate-tax measure that passed the Senate last Tuesday after being stalled for weeks. The Senate also recently pushed through 20 of the president's nominees for ambassadorships. What the Senate hasn't done is approve Democratic nominees for various positions. As Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said on the floor last week, “We have over a dozen Democratic nominees who have not yet been given even vetting, much less the actual official nomination.”</p>
<p>Daschle went on: “We will continue to work with our Republican colleagues and with the administration, but we have to be given the confidence that there will be reciprocity and some degree of appreciation for the need to move all nominees, regardless of political affiliation or of position.”</p>
<p>Good luck. Daschle need look no further than Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist for why relations between the parties have grown so bad. It's Frist, after all, who has poisoned the Senate well by campaigning for Daschle's South Dakota challenger this fall. And when John McCain complained last month about partisan bickering over the presidential candidates' war records, Frist told <i>Roll Call</i>, “Most everything is fair game in a political season.”</p>
<p>What's happened is that a chamber that operates based on the trust lawmakers place in one another no longer works that way. How can they believe on another's word when scoring political points for the campaign is more important than governing, especially when control of the Senate hangs in the balance with each election? The fact that senators now spend so much time campaigning and raising money rather than breaking bread with other lawmakers doesn't help, either.</p>
<p>The problem for Republicans is that their plan is both bad politics <i>and</i> bad governing. With millions of Americans still out of work and/or facing the prospect of loved ones spending more time in Iraq and Afghanistan, they want to hear what lawmakers are doing to solve their problems, not about petty partisan bickering. Until Republicans gain the 60 votes needed to shut off debate, they're much more likely to accomplish their legislative goals if they include Democrats, which makes good governing sense as well.</p>
<p>But as Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid noted on the floor earlier this month, Republicans don't exactly have a good track record. Republicans didn't tell Democrats where the energy conference committee meetings were going to be held last fall. They <i>did</i> let Democrats in on the location of the Medicare conference and told them two lawmakers could attend. But when Democrats asked if more lawmakers could come, Republicans said no and then closed the meetings. “That is not what a conference is all about,” he said. Now, the transportation bill is being held up by, among other things, Republicans' refusal to let Democrats approve conference reports.</p>
<p>Republicans ran a national campaign on the theme of Democratic obstruction in 2002 and it worked: They picked up House seats and regained control of the Senate. They've had two years to produce results. You think they would have learned from Jim Jeffords' defection in 2001 that every vote counts and that it's important to court every lawmaker. Clearly, they haven't.</p>
<p>McConnell is right. There is too much gridlock in the Senate these days. Many congressional observers believe that not much more is likely to get done this year. Right now, there's not even an agreement on the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution. “Why don't we just go home … rather than go through this charade of telling Americans that we are legislating?” McCain asked recently. But that wouldn't make for a compelling election-year charge for Republicans. In terms of the campaign, they believe it's much better to have lawmakers sniping at one another than actually getting things done. As the impending Senate stalemate shows, isn't that what politics is all about these days?</p>
<p><i>Mary Lynn F. Jones is online editor of The Hill. Her column on Capitol Hill politics runs each week in the online edition of The American Prospect.</i></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 17 May 2004 11:37:09 +0000143478 at http://prospect.orgMary Lynn Jones